NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM: The Wilmot Proviso Passes

[TheHedgehog]

Do the Nationals have any socially liberal faction? If yes what’s there strength?

The Nationals have a socially liberal faction, which is generally made up of about 60% of the Labor-endorsed candidates, so about 35-40% of the party. The rest of the National Party is southern social conservatives (Zell Miller types), budget hawks (like Chuck Robb IOTL), Christian Welfarists (kind of like Jimmy Carter), and western moderates (sort of like Max Baucus).
It's also worth mentioning that the social conservatives aren't like OTL social conservatives. Their flagship policy proposals are generally public morality laws, like cracking down on gambling, pornography, prostitution, 'internet stuff', drugs, alcohol sales, and the like.

 

[Cybercat]

What are the geographic strengths of the parties? How do Cuba and Florida/Georgia vote or is race less politically polarized?

 

[TheHedgehog]

What are the geographic strengths of the parties? How do Cuba and Florida/Georgia vote or is race less politically polarized?

The Nationals are very popular in industrial states like Ohio or Michigan, as well as most of the south. The Freedomites are strong in New England, west coast (though Sacramento is more of a swing state thanks to the Central Valley) and the east coast, as well as the black majority states of Florida, SC, and Mississippi, and 'sun belt' states like Fremont, Brazos, and New Mexico. The big swing states are North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey (though growing more Freedomite due to growing suburbs and declining industry),Wisconsin, Sacramento, and Austin, though the plains and mountain west states are also competitive.
More specifically, Georgia is generally a National Party stronghold, as is Cuba. Political affiliation is less determined by race, though the Freedom Party still wins about 75-80% of the black vote, while the Nationals do well among Mexican-Americans in Taylor and Austin and Cuban-Americans in Cuba.

 

[Light_Star 1]

The Nationals have a socially liberal faction, which is generally made up of about 60% of the Labor-endorsed candidates, so about 35-40% of the party. The rest of the National Party is southern social conservatives (Zell Miller types), budget hawks (like Chuck Robb IOTL), Christian Welfarists (kind of like Jimmy Carter), and western moderates (sort of like Max Baucus).
It's also worth mentioning that the social conservatives aren't like OTL social conservatives. Their flagship policy proposals are generally public morality laws, like cracking down on gambling, pornography, prostitution, 'internet stuff', drugs, alcohol sales, and the like.

What politicians would be examples of Labor Nationals?

 

[TheHedgehog]

What politicians would be examples of Labor Nationals?

While Walter Reuther, Hubert Humphrey, Dick Gephardt or Henry M. Jackson won't exist TTL, they would be prime examples of Labor Nationals.

 

[Light_Star 1]

While Walter Reuther, Hubert Humphrey, Dick Gephardt or Henry M. Jackson won't exist TTL, they would be prime examples of Labor Nationals.

Thanks so I as a socially liberal Catholic from CT would probably vote National right?

 

[TheHedgehog]

Thanks so I as a socially liberal Catholic from CT would probably vote National right?

Well, the Freedom Party is more so the party of social liberals, and the Nationals don't have much of a presence in New England. Now, if you were alive in the early 1900s, you would probably vote National, but in the modern day (especially after the Bonaparte presidency brings many Catholics into the Freedom Party) you would likely be a Freedomite.

 

[DocBrown]

Sort of. Basically,

Spoiler: SPOILER

Fremont implements a version of the 40 Acres and a Mule plan in Georgia and Florida, and the two states become majority-black and havens from Jim-Crow states.

President Fremont hurriedly signed the Act into law, before using the law’s authority to seize the plantations of secessionists in the states of Mississippi, South Carolina, and Florida. Fremont selected those two states as a trial run to see how the seizure and redistribution of land went, with plans to seize the plantations of Georgia and Louisiana if all went smoothly.

Wasn't Georgia supposed to be the only other state besides Florida to undergo the Land Appropriation Act, not South Carolina and Mississippi? If not, then there's a typo in the 2nd quoted post.

 

[TheHedgehog]

Wasn't Georgia supposed to be the only other state besides Florida to undergo the Land Appropriation Act, not South Carolina and Mississippi? If not, then there's a typo in the 2nd quoted post.

I retconned it after someone pointed out S. Carolina was majority-black.

 

[Light_Star 1]

Well, the Freedom Party is more so the party of social liberals, and the Nationals don't have much of a presence in New England. Now, if you were alive in the early 1900s, you would probably vote National, but in the modern day (especially after the Bonaparte presidency brings many Catholics into the Freedom Party) you would likely be a Freedomite.

Cool Thanks for explaining that. I would still be fiscally progressive though. Especially for a Freedomite.

 

[Nyvis]

Also, it's not some convergent 'end of history' thing. TTL's US political parties are quite different, with different divides and factions and policies. It's just that I feel it would be unrealistic to have these more radical ideologies present. Why would labor back a socialist when they can get what they want by backing the Nationals? Why should businesses endorse some corporatist when the Eastern Establishment does just fine? Of course, many socialists in TTL's USA would feel locked out of the 'political establishment' but TTL's USA, is a nation where the voters prefer the center-left, center, and center-right, not any radical solutions.

The US' socialists didn't fade quietly they were killed or imprisoned. The unions didn't turn into pathetic electoral/crime machines without some serious cracking down on their socialist leanings. Without a convergent succession of red scares and with more radical founding for the freedomites, I had some hope their pro labour wing would have more luck down the line, since there was quite a bit of overlap with radical labour politics. Like, Lincoln literally corresponded with Marx and talked about the primacy of labour over capital, and he's too moderate for them.

I'm also seriously tired of "what if the center left was socially conservative, wouldn't that be a lark", which completely ignores the material reasons why the economically right wing party always end up drifting towards being the social conservative one over time (they need non economic reasons for non wealthy people to vote for them).

At least we can vote for Debs' corpse and act as spoiler I guess.

 

[TheHedgehog]

The US' socialists didn't fade quietly they were killed or imprisoned. The unions didn't turn into pathetic electoral/crime machines without some serious cracking down on their socialist leanings. Without a convergent succession of red scares and with more radical founding for the freedomites, I had some hope their pro labour wing would have more luck down the line, since there was quite a bit of overlap with radical labour politics. Like, Lincoln literally corresponded with Marx and talked about the primacy of labour over capital, and he's too moderate for them.

Yes, but 1) the very radical people like Benjamin Wade were a minority in the party and 2) by the 1870s and 1880s, the OTL Republican Party had changed, as does the Freedom Party ITTL, to become more business-friendly. It might be a bit convergent to have the Freedom Party end up so similar to the Republican Party of the 1880s, but I think there are some things that have enough probability of happening that it would be unrealistic to specifically avoid them. The more divergent part TTL is that the Freedom Party stays the party of the 'Eastern Establishment'.
Also, there's not going to be any Red Scares. Communism, while it will still exist, will not be such an influential ideology as it was OTL.

I'm also seriously tired of "what if the center left was socially conservative, wouldn't that be a lark", which completely ignores the material reasons why the economically right wing party always end up drifting towards being the social conservative one over time (they need non economic reasons for non wealthy people to vote for them).

At least we can vote for Debs' corpse and act as spoiler I guess.

The National Party isn't socially conservative like the Republican Party is today. It's socially conservative like William Jennings Bryan was. Rather than rail about abortion, it wants morality laws regulating public drunkenness, Sunday business, gambling, and the like. It's a populist party that appeals to farmers who need aid, blue-collar workers, Evangelicals who support outreach and welfare, and the like. The unions begin to back the Nationals during the Powell administration, due to its pro-labor policies.
The Freedom Party is not exactly economically right wing. They are in favor of things like welfare and social spending. They tend to oppose austerity measures. Where they differ is, of course, over social issues, business regulations, and whether Unions need oversight and investigations. The way the Freedom Party attracts swing voters in industrial states like Pennsylvania is by convincing them that reducing business regulation will expand work benefits and job opportunities by giving businesses more income to spend on expansion and retention (not that businesses work that way, but it's easy for a party to convince people of that, especially given how hard it is to disprove that lower regulations improve jobs growth). They also win over some workers by promising to seek understanding between business and labor, by overseeing negotiations and by negotiating with business leaders. In like states like Fremont and Sacramento, they use anti corruption rhetoric to bring over swing voters in where unions don't hold much sway. Also, it's not hard for a economically center-right, socially liberal candidate to win. Nixon came very close in 1960. Dewey could have won if he was more aggressive in campaigning. William McKinley won twice. Garfield won. Harding won in a landslide (though the Freedom Party is more liberal than Harding).

 

[Nyvis]

Yes, but 1) the very radical people like Benjamin Wade were a minority in the party and 2) by the 1870s and 1880s, the OTL Republican Party had changed, as does the Freedom Party ITTL, to become more business-friendly. It might be a bit convergent to have the Freedom Party end up so similar to the Republican Party of the 1880s, but I think there are some things that have enough probability of happening that it would be unrealistic to specifically avoid them. The more divergent part TTL is that the Freedom Party stays the party of the 'Eastern Establishment'.
Also, there's not going to be any Red Scares. Communism, while it will still exist, will not be such an influential ideology as it was OTL.

Without any red scares, socialists would probably grow into quite a threat to the two party system. It really really hurt their growth, and that growth was more due to material conditions in industrial and extractive workers than to ideology. I would also expect disgruntled radicals in the freedom party's left wing to join in on that, which would grant them a bit more of an impulse. And unions aren't going to get cowed into narrow minded structures without red scares so they won't all fit neatly under the Nationals' umbrella.

You'd probably end up closer to Canada's 2 and a half parties to a two party system with some minor challenges without red scares.

The Freedom Party is not exactly economically right wing. They are in favor of things like welfare and social spending. They tend to oppose austerity measures. Where they differ is, of course, over social issues, business regulations, and whether Unions need oversight and investigations. The way the Freedom Party attracts swing voters in industrial states like Pennsylvania is by convincing them that reducing business regulation will expand work benefits and job opportunities by giving businesses more income to spend on expansion and retention (not that businesses work that way, but it's easy for a party to convince people of that, especially given how hard it is to disprove that lower regulations improve jobs growth). They also win over some workers by promising to seek understanding between business and labor, by overseeing negotiations and by negotiating with business leaders. In like states like Fremont and Sacramento, they use anti corruption rhetoric to bring over swing voters in where unions don't hold much sway. Also, it's not hard for a economically center-right, socially liberal candidate to win. Nixon came very close in 1960. Dewey could have won if he was more aggressive in campaigning. William McKinley won twice. Garfield won. Harding won in a landslide (though the Freedom Party is more liberal than Harding).

In an environment where anyone trying to organize the working class on class struggle lines got kneecapped by repeated red scares, this kind of convincing sounds like something they could easily do, yes. But if we're talking no red scares, I expect that to be way harder because there was serious growing organization on class lines. Unions only turned into easily swayed political machines because they were persecuted for trying to be more.

I think the easiest way to solve that is to still have some red scares, if you don't want to change where you end up.

 

[TheHedgehog]

Without any red scares, socialists would probably grow into quite a threat to the two party system. It really really hurt their growth, and that growth was more due to material conditions in industrial and extractive workers than to ideology. I would also expect disgruntled radicals in the freedom party's left wing to join in on that, which would grant them a bit more of an impulse. And unions aren't going to get cowed into narrow minded structures without red scares so they won't all fit neatly under the Nationals' umbrella.

You'd probably end up closer to Canada's 2 and a half parties to a two party system with some minor challenges without red scares.

In an environment where anyone trying to organize the working class on class struggle lines got kneecapped by repeated red scares, this kind of convincing sounds like something they could easily do, yes. But if we're talking no red scares, I expect that to be way harder because there was serious growing organization on class lines. Unions only turned into easily swayed political machines because they were persecuted for trying to be more.

I think the easiest way to solve that is to still have some red scares, if you don't want to change where you end up.

That does give me an idea. So what I'm thinking is that the aftermath of WW1 sees a communist rising in France, and the violence causes a Red Scare during the close of the Fairbanks administration and the beginning of the Nash administration. That should be enough to choke off the growth of a major socialist movement and redirect the labor movements into existing structures. The Fairbanks administration going after some of the leaders for publishing "seditious" anti-war Socialists certainly would help. Of course, the much more looming threat to America is going to be the German Empire and their Russian friends.

 

[Nyvis]

That does give me an idea. So what I'm thinking is that the aftermath of WW1 sees a communist rising in France, and the violence causes a Red Scare during the close of the Fairbanks administration and the beginning of the Nash administration. That should be enough to choke off the growth of a major socialist movement and redirect the labor movements into existing structures. The Fairbanks administration going after some of the leaders for publishing "seditious" anti-war Socialists certainly would help. Of course, the much more looming threat to America is going to be the German Empire and their Russian friends.

So basically OTL's first red scare? Yeah that fits. Without a strong communist internationale the second might not be necessary, especially if you're fine having the Socialists as a semi relevant third party. Might be interesting to explore who sticks with them (or is willing to enter coalition with them) and where are their remaining strongholds.

I'm down for that, this makes a lot more sense to me that way, thanks!

 

[TheHedgehog]

So basically OTL's first red scare? Yeah that fits. Without a strong communist internationale the second might not be necessary, especially if you're fine having the Socialists as a semi relevant third party. Might be interesting to explore who sticks with them (or is willing to enter coalition with them) and where are their remaining strongholds.

I'd estimate that the Socialist Party would experience their best results during depressions (getting up to 15-20 seats) and have a baseline of ~6 seats and 1 Senate seat. I imagine that a 'hung Congress' would see the Socialists form a confidence and supply arrangement with the Nationals in exchange for a pro-labor, socially moderate Speaker, but support the Freedom Party on social matters.

I'm down for that, this makes a lot more sense to me that way, thanks!

I'm always happy to clarify my plans

 

[TheHedgehog]

Revenue, Reconciliation, and Reunification

From “We Must Endeavor: The Story of Reconciliation” by Sir Andrew Dickerson
Published 1997

“Upon his inauguration, President Sherman inherited a divided party. A large minority of the Freedomite congressional delegation was opposed to him, though their numbers had declined significantly in the aftermath of the 1864 congressional elections. Of course, the Freedom Party held a comfortable majority in the House of Representatives, so Sherman and Colfax could afford a few defections in the House, but in the Senate, despite the Freedom Party holding the majority, there were twelve Senators who had supported the Reconciliationist ticket of Lincoln and Foster, enough that, if even half of these Senators opposed Sherman’s legislation, it would not pass.

Thus, Sherman’s agenda was limited to what the radicals and Lincolnites held in common. This removed from consideration any continuation of Fremont’s plantation confiscations, as well as any sort of treason trials for Confederate leaders (though most Radicals had cooled on the idea by then). Instead, Sherman sought to unite his own party with monetary policy and crackdowns on a growing insurgency in southern states.

Sherman wanted to focus on helping the economy recover from the inflationary spending of the Civil War. It had been an area he had involved himself with greatly in his capacity as Speaker of the House during the war, and he wished to build a strong economy with a gold-backed dollar. During the war, the Fremont administration had struggled to afford army wages, supplies, weapons, and an expanded navy during the war, and so Sherman had helped draft legislation that weakened the gold standard and would allow the U.S. government to issue Demand Notes, both being paper notes redeemable for silver or gold (specie). This created short-term revenue but failed to fix the long-term issue because the government lacked the specie reserves to redeem all of the Demand Notes.

The goal was to expand the government’s monetary reserves, but this, combined with the passage of large bond packages, allowed the government to fund the war (spending a record of $2 million per day), at the cost of a worsening economy. In December of 1857, many banks refused to redeem Demand Notes for specie, causing gold to begin to disappear from circulation. Sherman and his colleagues urged that “a radical change must be made in our existing laws as they regard currency to prevent the destruction of the Union”. Treasury Secretary Fessenden had to be persuaded that changes to the existing monetary policy had to be made, but after a terse meeting with Sherman and Fremont, submitted a proposal that new government notes be issued, to be redeemable in government bonds rather than hard specie. This resulted in the Legal Tender Act of 1857 [1], which historians concur greatly aided in America’s swift victory over the Confederates.

Further financial legislation followed the Legal Tender Act of 1857, with 1859 seeing the passage of the National Banking Act. The act, first proposed the year prior by Senator Salmon P. Chase, a fellow champion of fiscal reform, established a system of nationally chartered, privately operated banks to issue notes in conjunction with the Treasury Department. The National Banking Act helped provide more, and more efficiently derived, revenue to fund the war effort, but nevertheless the post-war United States had amassed very large amounts of debt, which only increased after the Contraction Act of 1863, which gradually withdrew Government Notes from circulation by converting them from notes redeemable in bonds to interest-bearing notes redeemable in coin. Sherman had objected to this measure, as it would deplete the government’s hard currency reserves, but it was passed over his objections when President Fremont and Secretary Fessenden announced their support for it and persuaded Sherman to bring it to a vote. However, one major piece of legislation backed by then-Speaker Sherman, the Price Act, which sought to reduce the price of goods as a precursor to restoring the gold standard, was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Lincoln in 1863, further laying the groundwork for the monetary policy undertaken by Sherman during his tenure as President.

Thus, Sherman entered office with a ballooning national debt and a contracting specie reserve. The first step he took towards reducing the deficit was proposing, through his allies in Congress, the Government Notes Act, which would bar Congress from retiring further government notes. The Government Notes Act, popularly known as the Greenback Law, sought to placate both the general public, who had grown accustomed to them, as well as businessmen, who believed that greenbacks were stimulating the economy and that to withdraw them would cause prices to drop and hurt their businesses. this is not to say that Sherman endorsed a fiat currency, as he very much wanted to restore the gold standard and use that as the foundation for a strong post-war economy.

One of the major pieces of legislation passed during Sherman’s first year as President was the Public Credit Act of 1865. The Public Credit Act was intended to return the U.S. economy to a gold-backed system and phase out the inflationary greenbacks. Sherman, being very much interested in financial matters, involved himself greatly in the drafting of the bill, holding extensive meetings with the members of the Financial Committees, Speaker Colfax, Treasury Secretary Chase, and many other important politicians and officials. The Public Credit Act was simple in its content – it simply required that holders of government bonds be paid in gold. The Act was rapidly drafted and passed and was signed just two weeks after its introduction into the House in a small ceremony on March 21st, 1865. After the passage of the PCA, Sherman decided to wait for economic conditions to stabilize before taking further steps to reintroduce the gold standard, with the next major piece of legislation being the Government Notes Redemption Act in 1872 [2], during Sherman’s last full year in office.”

------------------------------------
President: John Sherman
------------------------------------

Vice President: Henry Wilson

Secretary of State: William Seward

Secretary of the Treasury: Salmon P. Chase

Secretary of War: John F. Reynolds

Attorney General: Benjamin Wade

Postmaster-General: John A. Creswell

Secretary of the Navy: David Farragut

Secretary of the Interior: Jacob D. Cox
------------------------------------

From “An Encyclopedia of World History” by Fletcher & Sons EduPrint Co.
Published 2008

The Brother’s War (similar: Alpine War): A conflict in central Europe that lasted from June 14th, 1866 to July 29th, 1866. After the Second Schleswig War in 1864 in which Prussia and Austria had formed an alliance to restore Schleswig-Holstein to semi-independent status (and ultimately placed the territories under their joint control), Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck continued to plot Prussia’s rise to German, and later, European, primacy. The most obvious roadblock in Prussia’s rise to dominance was Austria, the other major power in the German Confederation and therefore the natural opponent to Prussian unification schemes.

In the aftermath of Napoleon III’s assassination, Sardinia was driven from French arms and signed an alliance with the Prussians, with the implicit intention of waging war together against Austria. The alliance remained in place for half a decade without any cause for war, but besides the Sardinian desire for Risorgimento and the Prussian desire for
Vereinigung, there were other pressures on King Vittorio Emmanuel II and King Wilhelm I. In Sardinia, the King was faced with demands for reform, while in Prussia, Wilhelm was locked in a struggle with a liberal-dominated parliament. And in Austria, Emperor Franz Joseph was struggling to keep his large and ethnically-diverse empire together. One of the great unifiers of a nation is war, and so each of these three sovereigns felt that some sort of victory in war could ease the strain they were under and get public opinion on their side.
The casus belli of the war was a dispute between Prussia and Austria over their joint administration of Schleswig-Holstein. Austria had permitted the estates of the duchies to hold a joint assembly, which Bismarck claimed violated the principle of joint Austro-Prussian rule over the territories. On February 7th, 1866, Austria refused Prussian demands and, in early March, reinforced the troops along its border with Prussia. On March 28th, Prussia mobilized five divisions, pushing the two countries (and, by extension, Sardinia) towards war. Three days prior, Bismarck had telegrammed Sardinian Prime Minister Camillo Benso, the Count of Cabour, [3], signaling his intention to wage war on Austria, and calling upon Sardinia-Piedmont to aid in the effort. Cavour ordered the total mobilization of the Sardinian Army immediately after he recieved word of Prussia’s partial mobilization [4].
Worried by the escalating tensions, Emperor Franz Joseph ordered a mobilization of all troops along the border with Sardinia, which included placing Lombardy and Venetia under martial law for the “duration of the war". Austria then brought the Schleswig-Holstein dispute before the German Diet when it convened on June 1st, while simultaneously convening the Diet of Holstein ten days later. In response, Prussia renounced the Badgastein Convention of a year prior, which regulated how the joint administration of Schleswig-Holstein was to work, was null and void, and invaded Schleswig-Holstein. On June 14th, the German Diet voted to mobilize against Prussia’s invasion, and Bismarck declared the end of the German Confederation. Hanover, Saxony, and Hesse were all invaded by Prussian armies soon after, while Cavour issued a declaration of war, bringing Sardinia-Piedmont into the war.
Bismarck was emboldened to make war on Austria after meeting with the ruling French government, which, while pro-Austria, indicated they would be willing to remain neutral in exchange for either Luxembourg or the Bavarian Palatinate. Wanting to avoid French intervention (though weakened by the abortive Mexican intervention, France remained a strong continental force), Bismarck agreed to hand over the Palatinate, which he expected would be acquired, in exchange for French neutrality.
With new technology, France neutral and Sardinia joining in, Prussia experienced quick success, with Helmut von Moltke advancing into Bohemia. At the key Battle of Sadowa [5], the Prussian army faced a combined Austro-Saxon force, commanded by Ludwig Benedek. The Prussians, despite being greatly outnumbered, and despite Crown Prince Frederick’s death when a bridge he was standing on was struck by Austrian artillery [6], scored a decisive win, destroying 36 out of 49 Austrian divisions in the heated fighting at the center of the battle lines, and forcing a general Austrian retreat at 16:00 [7]. The Sardinians had a more difficult time, but they still captured Milan thanks to the leadership of Giuseppe Garibaldi before pushing into Veneto.
It was at this point, with Austria pushed back on both fronts and other countries unwilling to get involved, that King Wilhelm I offered to make peace with Austria (at Bismarck’s urging, of course – Wilhelm had wanted to press onwards to Vienna). Franz Joseph agreed, and negotiations were held, mediated by Marshal MacMahon of France, in Prague. The German Confederation was dissolved totally, with Prussia forming a North German Union with itself, Saxony, and several other minor states. Prussia took no territory from Austria, though it annexed Hanover, Hesse, Frankfurt, all of Schlewig-Holstein, and traded Wurzburg (which had been occupied during the war) for the Bavarian Palatinate, which was then ceded to France in compliance with Bismarck’s agreement. Sardinia gained much more – Tuscany, Parma, and Modena were established as client states, and later annexed, while Lombardy and most of Veneto were annexed directly.
In just over one month, this “splendid little war", as Bismarck called it, had profoundly altered the political and diplomatic landscape of Europe. Prussia was now the premier power in Germany, North Italy (as Sardinia was renamed in the aftermath of the war) was on the rise, and one of Europe’s oldest powers was severely weakened. The Brother’s War, along with the later San Stefano Crisis, would together shape the alliances that participated in the Continental War, and indeed, these two events have shaped much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."

From “Black History”, by John C. Lodge III and Dr. Lawrence F. Meeks
Published 1975

“The core of Mississippi, even during the antebellum period, was the Yazoo Delta. Though the state’s population has begun to shift east towards Grant with the rise of computing businesses in recent years, the cultural heart of the state is rooted in the cotton plantations of the Yazoo region. It was there that wealthy planters like Jefferson Davis built stately homes on vast tracts of riverfront land, where they grew cotton in the rich alluvial floodplains, on the backs of many thousands of black slaves. So lucrative was the cotton planting economy that the number of slaves within Mississippi quickly grew to exceed the free population of the state.

During the Civil War, Mississippi was partially occupied by the Union army, with the Army of Louisiana besieging and capturing Vicksburg, and burning Grant (then named Jackson). Mississippi escaped the devastation brought to Virginia, Tennessee, and Georgia, despite the damage done to Vicksburg and Jackson. With the collapse of the Confederacy, Mississippi came under military rule during the Reconciliation period, as a part of the Third Military District. As Mississippi was included under the ‘Land Appropriations Act’, the land holdings of all slaveholders within the state were confiscated and turned over to the freedmen populations in what has come to be known as the “Negro’s Homestead Act”.

These seized plantations were distributed by the Freedmen’s Aid Bureau to the slaves, who were given forty acres of land from the seized plantations as well as farming equipment and a mule. In order to support these new smallholders and the new Mississippi economy, banks, schools, and roads were needed. Governor James L. Alcorn, who had been installed by President Lincoln, was able to provide some funds for road and school construction, but the state treasury was strapped for cash after the Civil War, and so it fell to private citizens to try and build a more modern Mississippi. The Free Bank of the South was thus chartered in Vicksburg, with such investors as Congressman Newton Knight, General Richard Taylor, and Confederate General James Longstreet. The Free Bank was intended as not only a bank to aid freedmen in establishing businesses and improving the state, but as a bank to aid poor white smallholders and southern entrepreneurs. With loans from the bank, swamps were drained to provide more farmland, roads and bridges (including the opulent Fremont Bridge over the Yazoo River) were constructed, and businesses, including new port facilities and warehouses in Vicksburg, opened.

With a combination of state-driven investment, Freedmen’s Bureau money, and the Free Bank of the South, Mississippi soon began to recover from the disruption and damage of the Civil War, with Vicksburg and Yazoo City exploding in population. Of course, cotton cultivation was not the most efficient industry for smallholders, and so agriculture in Mississippi took two routes – some smallholders pooled their resources to create cotton-growing cooperative farms, while others shifted to growing other, less intensive crops such as the various grains.

A new Mississippi was born amid the remains of the old.”

From “Reconciliation and Revenge: A History of the Postbellum US", by Philip DeLancey
Published 1985

“One thing that united the two factions of the Freedom party was the belief that civil rights legislation and civil rights amendments were necessary to preserve the rights of black Americans in the south. The thirteenth amendment, which abolished slavery and implemented some level of legal equality for black Americans, had been passed by Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states during the Fremont administration, but most Freedomites understood the need for further action. For one thing, as Zachariah Chandler pointed out in an address before the Senate, the thirteenth amendment, while it established the legal equality of freedmen, failed to clarify whether or not they were actually citizens. Thus, Chandler introduced a new amendment in June of 1866 with the goal of establishing freedmen as ‘free citizens of the Union’. This amendment found more support than the Thirteenth amendment and was easily passed by the Senate and the House. President Sherman even made a brief railroad tour of those states east of the Mississippi to lobby for the amendment’s ratification (though with much stricter security, in remembrance of John Fremont’s assassination while on a similar tour). Interestingly, the effects of the Fourteenth Amendment reached beyond just Reconciliation, as its citizenship clause, which declared all persons born on American soil, born to citizens, or fully naturalized, full American citizens, applied not just to freedmen and their children, but also to the children of immigrants born on American territory.

While the Fourteenth Amendment, which was much less controversial than the Thirteenth (and indeed, the Thirteenth Amendment may have softened public opinion towards the Fourteenth), was swiftly ratified within the year by the requisite number of states, Congress turned to other areas of Reconciliation.

By 1865, Reconciliation had been going on for five years in most parts of the south, six in some (like Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia), and the progressive and radical policies undertaken by both the Federal government and the state ‘Reconstructed Governments’ were already breeding violence and terrorism. Already angered at their loss in the Civil War, the Civil Rights Act, Land Appropriations Act, and Reconciliation Amendments all pushed disgruntled and, in many instances, impoverished Southern whites into radical supremacist organizations. Many were not just angry at the new rights given to Blacks but were also enraged at their effective disenfranchisement by the Wade-Davis Act’s ‘Ironclad Oath’ provision. One member of the feared Kuklus Clan (KC) testified while on trial for inciting violence that “I joined them [the Kuklus Clan] because I couldn’t vote but the N-----s could, I lost my farm while the gov’ment gave ‘em free land, I lost my leg, and we lost the war.” This unnamed man’s resentment was shared by many southerners, and eagerly stoked by those planters who had retained their wealth and land.

The Kuklus Clan was established in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six Confederate veterans (including Generals Nathan B. Forrest and George Gordan, the latter of which was selected the first Grand Wizard of the organization). It’s manifesto, the Prescript, expressly endorsed white supremacy, calling for the establishment of a “White Man’s Government”, while also demanding the “restoration of the franchise to the Southern people”. The KC swelled in size, attracting disgruntled Confederate veterans who began roaming the countryside, attacking Blacks, Northern “carpetbaggers” and Southern cooperationists, termed “scalawags”. The KC soon found immense popularity in South Carolina and Mississippi, states ruled by ‘Reconstructionist Parties’, which were coalitions of southern Republicans, Freedmen (such as Hiram R. Revels in Mississippi or Robert Smalls in South Carolina), and ‘carpetbaggers’ that enforced Reconciliation policies. Of course, at the time, most southern states were run by Reconstructionists. What made Mississippi and South Carolina in particular hotbeds of Kuklus Clan activity was the fact that, under the terms of the Land Appropriations Act, all plantations there had been seized and distributed among the freedmen.

The Clan quickly became a terrorizing force in the South, with members riding around, using their organization to both settle disputes and perpetrate racial violence. On June 28th, 1866, in Liberty, a small town on the Yazoo River, members of the Kuklus Clan burned homes, looted crops, killed work animals, and murdered freedmen. Over the course of a week of raids, 21 homes were torched, 34 mules and horses were killed, thousands of dollars of crops were destroyed or stolen, and eleven people were killed. The violence shocked many northerners, and President Sherman was forced to suspend habeas corpus in the area, and 10,000 additional troops were deployed to Mississippi to maintain the peace. The Freedmen’s Aid Bureau paid out several thousand dollars to rebuild Liberty after the violence, but no-one was prosecuted, as the perpetrators had effectively vanished. Similar events played out across Mississippi, South Carolina, and Florida, and against freedmen in other southern states.

While Sherman and Congress did not take decisive action until 1867, it was clear to many that the south would be in for a tumultuous time during Reconciliation…”

[1] An OTL act passed during the Civil War, here passed four years earlier. This is one of those things that I think would have happened in any civil war scenario where the Union has competent leadership. (Also, welcome back to footnotes!)
[2] This was an OTL act (as are most of the Acts mentioned) signed by Grant during the lame duck period after the 1874 midterm elections. Here, it is signed two years early, just before the 1872 election.
[3] Without French backing, the Second Italian War of Independence is butterflied away, as is Garibaldi’s expeditions. Thus, Cavour does not resign in 1859, and remains as PM.
[4] the Sardinian mobilization occurs earlier than OTL, before the Austrian partial mobilization. This is due to Prussian encouragement and closer ties between the two powers.
[5] Basically Koniggratz but named after a different nearby village.
[6] OTL, Moltke, King Wilhelm I, and Frederick were all on a bridge observing the battle and could have all died. TTL, it’s just Frederick, and he dies. This will be important later on, especially regarding Wilhelm II (TTL, his arm is normal) and his upbringing.
[7] Slight butterflies as a result of momentary confusion stemming from Crown Prince Frederick’s death.

Spoiler: Author's Note

Sorry for the long absence! Comments, questions, predictions welcome. I love hearing from you all!

 

[lukedalton]

Oh right, it seem that the Kingdom of North Italy (now) second war of independence has been succesfull and hoping that Cavour got more years of life and it's probable that while not Presidente del Consiglio he will quickly get a ministerial job (industry or foreign affairs) and the moment the war start La Marmora will get back to be a soldier, Cavour will get the spot...not that anyone that really understand the situation will believe that in this period he was the one really in charge of the goverment; hell Count Camillo Benso of Cavour was a political giant in the middle of political midget (at best) and 6 years are a long period in such political enviroement so officially or not he will be the real power behind the throne (unless he have other bout of malaria that incapacite him).

The moment the Kingdom of North Italy (with Nice and Savoy seem) it's enstablished, the day of the Papal States and The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies will be numbered, Garibaldi will immediately push for their liberation and will start the recruit of volunteers; locals will look at what happened in the north and will start agitate while the Pope and the Bourbon authorities will start the crack down worsening the situation

 

[TheHedgehog]

Oh right, it seem that the Kingdom of North Italy (now) second war of independence has been succesfull and hoping that Cavour got more years of life and it's probable that while not Presidente del Consiglio he will quickly get a ministerial job (industry or foreign affairs) and the moment the war start La Marmora will get back to be a soldier, Cavour will get the spot...not that anyone that really understand the situation will believe that in this period he was the one really in charge of the goverment; hell Count Camillo Benso of Cavour was a political giant in the middle of political midget (at best) and 6 years are a long period in such political enviroement so officially or not he will be the real power behind the throne (unless he have other bout of malaria that incapacite him).

The moment the Kingdom of North Italy (with Nice and Savoy seem) it's enstablished, the day of the Papal States and The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies will be numbered, Garibaldi will immediately push for their liberation and will start the recruit of volunteers; locals will look at what happened in the north and will start agitate while the Pope and the Bourbon authorities will start the crack down worsening the situation

Huh. I must have misread wikipedia. So I guess Cavour would stay on as PM without the brief interlude at the end of the (OTL) Second War of Independence.
And yes, the Papal States and the Two Sicilies won't be around much longer. Garibaldi will be planning a (delayed) Expedition of the Thousand soon...

 

[Nyvis]

Good to see the reconstruction policies working out in Mississippi, though the Klan is of course worrying...